Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1916–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ray v. Stategreen2 sentences2008In Ray v. State, 148 S.W.3d 218, 226-27 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004), rev’d, 178 S.W.3d 833 (Tex.Crim.App.2005), the majority of this Court concluded that the exclusion of testimony was not substantially harmful because the defendant was able to get her defensive theory before the jury even absent the testimony and that it “would not have added significantly to Ray’s defense.” The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed our decision on that point and remanded the case for a new trial. 2005The court of appeals’s majority opinion reasons that the error was harmless because Williams’s testimony “would not have added significantly to Ray’s defense.” Id. at 226 . | 1 | 2 |
Waldo v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Ray has not argued, and we do not find, that the State’s question was “clearly calculated to inflame the minds of the jury” or “of such character as to suggest the impossibility of withdrawing the impression produced on their minds.” Waldo v. State, 746 S.W.2d 750, 752 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Lovill v. Stategreen1 sentence2022See Lovill v. State, 319 S.W.3d 687, 691-92 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
The City of El Paso v. Lilli M. Heinrichgreen1 sentence2018See Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 372 . | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Anderson, 633 S.W.2d at 854 . 4 In response to questions asked by Ray's counsel, Juror Number 8 answered that she believed that the reasonable-doubt standard could be the wrong standard to apply in some criminal cases, depending on the situation and occurrence; that the standard was going to be too high in some cases. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Smith, 297 S.W.3d at 368 ; King, 29 S.W.3d at 568; Patrick, 906 S.W.2d at 488 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Trimble v. Itz
green
1 sentence2012See Smith, 297 S.W.3d at 368 ; King, 29 S.W.3d at 568; Patrick, 906 S.W.2d at 488 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Ray v. State
green
1 sentence2008In Ray v. State, 148 S.W.3d 218, 226-27 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004), rev’d, 178 S.W.3d 833 (Tex.Crim.App.2005), the majority of this Court concluded that the exclusion of testimony was not substantially harmful because the defendant was able to get her defensive theory before the jury even absent the testimony and that it “would not have added significantly to Ray’s defense.” The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed our decision on that point and remanded the case for a new trial. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Sassman v. Collins
green
1 sentence1916Long v. Mayberry, supra; Sassman v. Collins, 53 Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.